Archive for the ‘Paper Review’ Category
Motivation rehashed
Ah, motivation! All project managers want to find that magic button that will, when punched, fire up their teams to ever-higher levels of achievement. I’m no different. So when a paper entitled, Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, appeared in a recent issue of the Project Management Journal, I was motivated enough to give it a read. Unfortunately, I was a little disappointed on reading it. Although well written, and perhaps even useful to practising project managers, the paper does not belong in a professional, peer-reviewed academic/research journal. Read on for my reasons why.
To begin with, a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic/research journal ought to contain one or more of the following:
-
Original research.
-
A new or different perspective on existing knowledge.
-
A comprehensive critical review of an existing area of knowledge.
This paper contains none of the above – a claim which I substantiate below. Ergo, it doesn’t belong in an academic or research journal.
And so, on to the content.
The paper begins with a review of existing theories of motivation. The usual suspects are all present and accounted for: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y; Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory; McClelland’s Theory of Needs and motivation based on individual Myers-Briggs personality types. The applicability of each of the above – which the author lists under “roles and responsibilities”, “advantages” and “disadvantages” – are well known, and the paper adds nothing new.
The next section discusses the impact and resolution (or correction) of so-called “motivational mistakes” that are outlined in the book Essential People Skills For Project Managers by Flannes and Levin (see pages 80-81 of the book). These “mistakes” – which are essentially ineffective techniques often used to motivate people – include approaches such as: “whatever motivates me will motivate others” or “they are are professionals and don’t need motivating” etc. (see the paper for a complete list). These “mistakes” are well known, as is their impact and resolution (see the book listed above, for example)
The author then delves into the use P-CMM framework in the context of project teams. Regardless of the utility of the framework in improving processes for managing and developing workforces (and opinions on this vary), the paper does not state anything new on the topic. Advice such as laying out well defined expectations, having well defined project processes, involving the project team in planning etc. etc. are offered. However, these have long been a part of project management lore.
In the penultimate section, the author offers some “directives” (which I prefer to interpret as advice) to assist in the development of a “team culture”. Most of the advice offered is, again, well known. The fourth item in the list, for example, states, “Reward the team and the team members.” So tell us something we don’t know…
The paper concludes with the observation that, “...Taking the time to to work with each team member to understand personal work drivers will allow the project manager to uncover basic human needs and individual motivators.” No contesting this point, for sure. But again, what’s new?
Having reviewed the paper, I should reiterate that it is well written and worth a read for practising project managers – if only as a reminder of what they already know. My main quibble, as you’ve undoubtedly gathered, is that the material presented isn’t new or comprehensive, and as such does not fulfil the criteria for a paper in an academic or research journal.
Reference:
Peterson T. M., Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, Project Management Journal, 38 (4), 60-69 (2007).
Rumours of a new project management paradigm
Many project managers spend a great deal of time on the technical aspects of project management, often overlooking the “softer”, people-oriented, issues that can derail a complex project. Although many books – including the gospel according to PMBOK – stress the important of soft skills, the current paradigm of project management is essentially mechanistic. In simple terms this means that the discipline is built on the assumption that future outcomes can be predicted accurately based on current information and actions. It is also implicitly assumed that human actions, interactions (and consequences thereof) can be objectively observed and then corrected or controlled.
A paper entitled Mapping the Strange Landscape of Complexity Theory and Its Relationship to Project Management, published in June 2007 of issue of the Project Management Journal challenges this paradigm of project management [Aside: The print version of the paper has an even more memorable title – see the reference at the end of this post]. According to the authors, recent advances in the study of complex systems suggest new ways of looking at the discipline. The idea of applying concepts from complexity theory to the social sciences is not new. In fact, a quick search revealed an introductory book on the topic in five seconds flat. What’s new, the authors claim, is the application of these ideas to project management.
In the paper, the authors start by briefly describing some well-established concepts from complexity theory which form the basis of their proposed paradigm. It would take me too far afield to discuss these in detail, so I refer my readers to Wikipedia for details and further references:
It is broadly accepted that many of the above concepts played an important role in modifying, if not overthrowing, the mechanistic (or Newtonian) paradigm in the natural sciences. In particular, these concepts led to the invention and adaptation of a host of new qualitative and quantitative research methods. Based on this, the authors make the following plea, and I quote : “ …If even pure science is finding the need to become more flexible in its research methods while not relapsing into ‘anything goes’, is it perhaps too much to hope that research into projects and their management will take account of these developments…”.
The authors then proceed to outline how the discipline of project management might take account of the new developments. As a first step, they highlight connections between complexity theory and the recent development of the concept of complex responsive processes of relating (CRPR) in organizational theory. This concept (which I confess, I don’t fully understand) is apparently a means of looking at complexity in organizations in a manner that emphasises interactions or communication among people. As I understand it, CRPR is concerned with how conversation and other communication patterns in specific situations are determined by, and in turn determine or modify, power relationships in organizations. An organization is thus viewed as an emergent property of interaction between humans, who use language to converse and also to negotiate status and power. Basically- again, as I understand it – the organization is created by individuals communicating (or relating) with each other in complex ways.
The outcome of a specific instance of interaction (or relating) between individuals is unpredictable because people are different, and there is an element of spontaneity to any specific interaction, even those that occur regularly. This allows for the possibility of transformation and novelty as the organisation continually evolves via CRPR. The future is thus continually being constructed through processes of interaction. Moreover, since outcomes are not predictable to a fine level of detail, people involved in these interactions experience anxiety. This anxiety has to be acknowledged and managed. However, as all individuals in the organization are linked in a complex web of evolving relationships, managers themselves are participants in these processes of relating. A manager (however high up or powerful) cannot be an objective observer of the system, as her or she is a part of it. An organization, can thus be viewed as a complex system displaying properties analogous to those displayed by complex physical systems (unpredictability and emergence, among others)
Some implications of CRPR for project management include:
-
Any project structures (work, tools, plans) must be viewed as forming and being formed by interactions between people (in a complex feedback loop). Projects are thus social arrangements, not structures.
-
Power is located in the processes of relating, rather than individual managers. So, close attention should be paid to importance of local communication between team members.
-
Managers need a “new” set of competencies that might include: a) sensitivity to patterns of conversations, and the ability to enable conversations that enhance learning and generate knowledge and b) the ability to deal with anxieties that are an inevitable consequence of constant change (i.e. evolving relationships).
The authors conclude by discussing some implications of complexity theory (and CRPR in particular) for what happens when people work together on project teams. This ties in with the much neglected “soft side” of project management mentioned in the first line of this post.
A caveat is in order at this point: although I do know something about physics, I’m no expert in the social sciences. Therefore I may well have misinterpreted the authors’ meaning and intent in areas where they discuss CRPR. What’s presented here is my interpretation of their words. Having said that, I can now venture a few comments on the paper in the spirit of a curious layman. They are:
-
The word “complex” and “complexity” is used in two senses in the paper: first, in the context of complex projects and second in the context of complexity theory and complex systems. The former (what is a complex project?) is left undefined in the paper. However, from what the authors discuss, it appears (to me, at least) that the ideas from complexity in the second sense apply to any kind of project, not just complex ones.
-
The connections or analogies between the eight or nine concepts from physics and CRPR are not obvious from a reading of the paper. I can see some connection between CRPR and unpredictability and emergence, and have alluded to this in an earlier paragraph. But the others, I don’t see at all. This may well be due to my lack of knowledge of the social sciences and CRPR in particular.
-
The physical concepts of complex systems have very precise meanings (as readers might gather from following the Wikipedia links above). However, the social analogues of these concepts are considerably harder (for me) to understand. Again, this is likely due to my lack of knowledge than any fault of the authors.
Despite my aforementioned quibbles, I found the paper very intriguing, as it dealt with issues that are of interest to me as a project manager. I look forward to the day when the social and people aspects of projects become the prime focus of project management, but I think we’re a long way from that at present. To conclude, I refer once again to the title of the print version of the paper : Dorothy and Toto may know they’re not in Kansas anymore, but they haven’t yet figured out where they are.
Reference:
Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L., and Richardson, K., We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto: Mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management, Project Management Journal, 38 (2), 50-61 (2007).
Project management in an Asian context
Since project management, as a discipline, originated in a Western culture, incompatibilities between project management values / beliefs and those of traditional Asian cultures are to be expected. Most readers who have worked both in Western and Asian organisations will be well aware of these differences. A recent paper entitled Cultural barriers to the use of Western project management in Chinese enterprises: Some empirical evidence from Yunnan province explores these differences in the context of Chinese organisations (see reference at the end of this post). Specifically, the authors look at four contrasting value/belief pairs, which cover the major differences between the two cultures:
- Integration management vs. doctrine of the mean: This refers to the contrast between project management practices – which generally emphasise integrating opinions, resolving conflicts and confronting risks – as opposed to traditional Chinese (and dare I say, Asian) practices in which confrontations and risks are avoided as far as possible.
- Horizontal management vs. strong hierarchy: This refers to the incompatibility between project management, which works best in a flat (or project-oriented) hierarchy, and the strong vertical hierarchies prevalent in Chinese organisations. The latter organisational structure tends to emphasise superior-subordinate relationships in which “questioning the boss” is not encouraged.
- Team consciousness vs. family consciousness Project teams are generally temporary, and tend to emphasise collaborative work across functions and merit-oriented performance evaluations. On the other hand, Chinese culture values long-term family and kinship relationships. These are not always compatible with cross-functional (or even intra-functional!) collaboration or performance-based recognition.
- Task orientation vs. boss orientation In project management getting the job done is paramount, whereas in Chinese culture the emphasis is on keeping the boss happy.
The authors developed a questionnaire to explore the relative importance of each of the above value/belief pairs. Based on the questionnaire, they conducted a survey involving respondents from a wide variety of industries in Yunnan province.
The analysis of the results revealed that the major cultural barriers to project management in Chinese organisations are the last three items: i.e. strong hierarchy, family consciousness and boss orientation. It is interesting that a majority of the respondents thought that the doctrine of the mean was consistent the integrative nature of project management.
The authors also find that the barriers tend to be larger in state owned organisations than in private or joint ventures. Further, within state-owned organisations, older ones tended to have larger barriers than younger ones.
Also interesting is the find that project management training has a critical effect on lowering cultural barriers: As more individuals in an organisation received relevant training, the organisation became more supportive of project management practices.
The authors end with the caveat that their conclusions are based on the result of a single (yet representative) survey, and must therefore be treated as a pilot study.
I found this paper worth reading because it articulates and explores some of the contrasts I have noticed in my own work with organisations in India, Australia and the US. In my experience, many of the observations made regarding cultural barriers to PM practices apply to (non-Chinese) Asian cultures as well. Those of you who work with cross-cultural project teams – particularly those across Asian and Western cultures – may find this paper a worthwhile read.
Reference:
Wang, X. and Liu, L., Cultural barriers to the use of Western project management in Chinese enterprises: Some empirical evidence from Yunnan province, Project Management Journal, 38(3), 61-73 (2007).
Eight to Late 